1. Minutes and Announcements

The Chair noted that the
minutes
for November 14 were amended to include the new name of what was previously
the Department of Geology. The new
name is Department of Earth and Environmental Science. The minutes
were approved as amended.

The Chair asked Jones to speak
on the results of the Senate Council election.
Jones stated that the Senate Rules and Elections Committee had completed
the final round of voting for three elected faculty members to serve on the Senate
Council. He said the results were close;
filling the final seat came down to three individuals who were all within three
votes of each other. The names were then
chosen as per Senate Rule 1.3.1.2.A. Noting a potentially different outcome if
more senators had voted, Jones commented that 58 eligible senators did not
vote. He announced the election of Anthony
Baxter (College of Engineering), Doug Michael (College
of Law) and David Randall (College of Medicine) as the new Senate Council
members. Jones welcomed them and noted
appreciation for the efforts of those whose terms on the Council were ending,
Ernie Yanarella, Kaveh Tagavi and Mike Cibull.

The Chair offered his thanks
to Cibull. He stated Cibull had brought keen
insight and perception to the Senate Council.
The Chair said he would thank him again at the Senate Council meeting on
December 19. In addition, the Chair
explained that he, as chair, he, and Tagavi, as vice chair, would remain on the
Senate Council until the end of May.

The Chair reminded senators
of the Board and Senates? Holiday Reception.
The event was scheduled for December 13, from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm in the Lexmark Public Room, 209 Main Building. He invited the senators to attend and enjoy
libations and good conversation.

2. Graduate Certificate in Nursing Studies

The Chair explained this
certificate would allow graduate students in the Martin
School to receive a graduate
certificate from the College
of Nursing. This Certificate was a complement to the graduate
certificate passed recently by the Senate, which permitted nursing graduate
students to earn a graduate certificate from the Martin School. The certificate came from the Senate Council
with a positive recommendation. He
offered an invitation for discussion on the certificate. He added that the certificate had met with
little controversy in the Senate Council.
As there was no further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion from the Senate Council to approve
creation of a Graduate Certificate in Nursing Studies. The motion passed unanimously, with no abstentions.

3. Minor in Quantitative Financial Analysis

The minor would allow
students in math, engineering and business to receive specialized knowledge in
financial markets. There being no
discussion, a vote was taken on the motion from the Senate Council to approve
creation of a Minor in Quantitative Financial Analysis. The motion passed unanimously, with no abstentions.

4. Graduate Certificate in Clinical Research Skills

The certificate would remove
from the "practicum" requirement and the need for credit hours or tuition
reimbursement. This would change the
three "practica" courses into "culminating or integrating experiences" or "major
projects" that would obviate the need to formally register. The Chair noted the Senate Council received
information regarding the background and need for the change. He asked for discussion.

Grossman wanted to know the
department from which the certificate change came. MacKnight, from the College
of Public Health, stated the change
request was from the College
of Public Health. There being no more discussion, a vote was taken on the motion from the Senate
Council to approve the changed Graduate Certificate in Clinical Research
Skills. The motion passed unanimously, with no abstentions.

5. Request by Senate Council for University Senate to Approve Waiving the Two-Term Limit for Senate Council Chair (background and proposal presented by Mike Cibull, outgoing Senate Council member)

The Chair stated he would
cede the floor to Cibull during the discussion, and asked Tagavi to stand as
Acting Chair. Tagavi stated his intent
to speak against the proposal and declined to preside. Tagavi then asked the Chair to clarify who
would preside over the meeting. Cibull
stated that it appeared Chair Yanarella would preside. The Chair confirmed that he (Yanarella) would
be presiding in the absence of Tagavi?s willingness to serve.

Cibull stated that the Senate
Council was required to elect a chair during the month of December. He further stated that, as such, the Senate
Council discussed the important qualities of a Senate Council Chair. Those qualities were paramount at the current
time, especially due to changes at UK, including changes to general
education, the Top 20 Business Plan and its interface with the new Strategic
Plan, the search for a new provost, and the new provost?s interaction with
faculty. He stated he felt the chair
should be extremely knowledgeable regarding the workings of the University at
all levels, especially those of the administration and education. He felt that many, although not all, Senate
Council members thought it important to have a chair with a centralist point of
view who would be better able to bring together diverse opinions. Cibull also stated the need for an individual
ready to put forth the necessary time and effort and the willingness to do
it. He continued that a chair should not
be afraid to disagree with administrators when necessary, and should be able to
do so collegially. Cibull stated his
opinion that the person best embodying these qualifications was the current
Chair. He added that the term for Senate
Council chair was too short; the chair frequently was just getting comfortable
in the position when the position?s term ends.
Cibull noted that asking the University Senate to waive the term limit
was for the next term only, and would merely allow the current Chair (Yanarella)
to be nominated as a candidate. Cibull
stated his belief that there would be others seeking the position of chair; he
thought Yanarella should be considered as a candidate.

The Chair commented that
this was an unprecedented issue for the University Senate to consider. He noted only one other time at which a chair
served three consecutive terms, that of Professor Weaver [first Senate Council
Chair, elected in 1962]. The Chair
stated his preference to step down and let someone else stand as Chair for the
discussion. In light of Tagavi?s request
not to preside, however, the Chair (Yanarella) again stated he would stand as
Chair for the discussion. The Chair invited
discussion.

Gesund stated there was no
provision for waiving the Rules. He acknowledged the Senate?s authority to
change the Rules, but not waive
them. The Chair asked for a response to
the issue of the Senate Council?s request and relationship to the Rules.
Jones stated that there was no place in the Rules, per se, that allow for a waiver of the Rules by the University Senate.
He noted a section of the Rules
where the Senate delegates to the Council the authority to waive the Rules in the event of an emergency. Thus, he would argue that the body could not
delegate that which it does not have the authority to perform itself. Tagavi said there was a nuance in Jones?
explanation. If the Council could only
waive a Rule in an emergency, then
the Senate would also need a state of emergency in order to waive a Rule.
His concern was that no emergency had been identified.

Jones clarified, saying his
intent was to say that the Senate must have the authority to waive the rule innately;
otherwise, the Senate would not have the authority to delegate it to the
Council. He believed it to be
implicit. Jones also recognized that
others could disagree with his interpretation.
Dembo stated a Rule had been
waived in the past in regard to a curricular item being available for review
for a lesser period of time than required by the Rules. Grossman noted that
if the Council acts in an emergency and waives a Rule, the Senate must approve the waiver at the next Senate meeting. He stated he would reiterate Cibull?s
introductory comments. He described to
the Senate that he felt it would take approximately one year to train the new administrative
coordinator, and that it would take time to reach optimum levels of
efficiency. Grossman stated that this
was another reason to allow the present Chair to be nominated for Senate
Council Chair.

Infanger suggested the issue
be reviewed in two parts, a vote on voting on the motion and a vote to address
the question about who would be eligible to run for Senate Council Chair. The Chair stated he believed the questions of
nominations and elections were the province of the Council, so that issue
should be decided first. He asked if
Cibull thought the description was a correct
and fair assessment of the situation.
Cibull concurred, stating that he was making a motion. Cibull moved
that the University Senate waive the term limit for this next term only for the
position of Chair of the Senate Council.
Grossman seconded.

Tagavi stated a concern
regarding the Rules. He wanted to know if the action was in order
in light of the fact that there is no provision in the Rules for such waivers. The
Chair stated that by allowing the motion to progress, he was ruling the motion as
being in order. The Chair, referencing
Dembo?s earlier statements about Rule
waiving, cited precedence as the reason to allow discussion to continue. Tagavi stated that upon his election to the Senate
Council, he promised to bring the diversity of opinions among Council members
to the Senate. He stated that he and
another Senate Council member had been nominated for Council Chair. However, before he could accept or decline,
the process was halted. He expressed
concern with not adhering to Rules,
and stated the comparison with the Rule
referenced by Dembo was not applicable in light of their significance. He stated a Rule should only be waived after great consideration.

The Chair said he had
stepped down from his position during similar discussions during Senate Council
meetings and ceded authority to the Vice Chair (Tagavi) to oversee the actions
that transpired. The Chair stated he made
no arguments for or against and played no role in the current discussion. A number of Council members had asked, over a
period of time, about his willingness to extend service to the Senate. The Chair only agreed to be nominated again
so long as other Council candidates indicated an unwillingness to serve. As such, he did not prevent the Council from
moving forward. The Chair stated that
upon reviewing the Rules, he was
confident the Senate had the authority to consider the current discussion item.

Peffer asked if the
University Senate as a whole was uninformed regarding other issues at play in
the Senate Council. He observed from the
interaction among speakers that there was clearly division in the Council
regarding this issue and stated he had no informational basis for voting on the
motion. Cibull stated that after a
discussion in the Council about the qualities of the next Senate Council Chair,
many Council members felt that the current Chair (Yanarella) was the
appropriate choice. He added that the
motion would allow the current Chair to be nominated for the position of
Chair. Regardless, the Council member
with the most votes would win the election for Chair.

As a member of the Council,
Lesnaw spoke for the motion. She stated
her preference to view the situation not as an emergency but as an
opportunity. She was extremely concerned
about the person to be elected Chair.

Lesnaw stated that the Chair (Yanarella) had recused himself from all
deliberations regarding the election for the next Chair. While the Council did not unanimously support
waiving the two-term limit for Chair, a majority did support it. She stated the appropriateness of a future
review of the length of term for Senate Council Chair. Tagavi expressed concern that there was no
precedent for waiving a Rule in
regard to term limits. He stated that
waiving the Rule in question would
make it more difficult for the University Senate to protest an action by the
Administration if the Administration were inclined to waive an administrative regulation. Tagavi stated it would cause the Senate to
lose the moral high ground on such matters.

Bartilow observed that the
debate centered on a fear of incumbency, and that an incumbent could have an
advantage over another candidate. He
stated that waiving the Rule did not
preclude others from putting their names forth as candidates. Jones offered some background regarding the
Senate Council Office, stating that Professor Weaver, from the department that
is now Biology, served three consecutive terms, beginning in 1962. With a few recent exceptions, the remainder
of Senate Council Chairs all served one term.
Jones prefaced his next comments by saying he would vote in favor of the
motion. However, he noted strong
disagreement with the degree to which Council discussions were characterized
regarding the implication that only one member of the Council had the necessary
qualifications. Jones stated that there
was a minority of members holding that opinion, but it was a unanimous decision
to request a waiver of the two-term limit be submitted to the Senate.

The Chair stated he would
allow two more comments before ending discussion. Dembo summarized the role of Senate Council
Chair as three-fold: Senate Council Office manager; a conductor of business of
the Senate in all aspects; and the builder of rapport and relationships between
the elected faculty body and the Administration. He referenced the Top 20 Business Plan, the
search for Provost, the initiative to improve undergraduate education, and the
new Senate Council Office Administrative Coordinator all as reasons to preserve
continuity of the current Chair (Yanarella).
Gesund stated he had no objection regarding changing the Senate Rules but requested a parliamentarian
ruling addressing whether or not the Senate could waive something for which it
has no provision for waiving. He stated
the current motion was out of order.

The Chair repeated his
ruling that he believed a request from the Senate Council to the University
Senate to waive a Rule was within the
purview of the Senate. He called for a
vote on the motion.

Infanger requested
Sergeant-at-Arms Sohner determine if a quorum was present. Sohner stated that there were 44 members
signed in, with additional voting members who entered without signing in after
the meeting started. Another senator
signed in, officially making a quorum of 45.
A vote was taken by a show of
hands. The motion passed, with 25 in favor, 18 opposed and four abstentions.

The Chair stated that the Senate
Council would elect a Chair at the Council meeting on December 19.

6. Statement from Senate Council Regarding Top 20 Business Plan

The Chair read the motion: ?that the University Senate go
on record as urging that the Top 20 Business Plan and New Strategic Plan be reconciled,
and that process occur through close interaction between the University Senate
and the Administration.? As background,
the Chair explained that the Council had felt it necessary to discuss the Top
20 Business Plan (Plan) and its pros and cons in light of its imminent
consideration by the Board of Trustees.
He stated the Council had an open, frank discussion and that the Council
felt that while there would be other opportunities for airing concerns, the
bottom line was that the Council accepted the reality of the Plan being
approved by the Board of Trustees. The
motion was intended to underline the importance of the implementation phase of
the Plan, particularly in the reconciliation of the Plan with a new Strategic
Plan. The Chair hoped the motion would
reinforce the important voice of faculty and especially the voice of the University
Senate with regard to these two documents.

Lesnaw agreed with the
Chair?s comments, and, as author of the motion, said the creation and
implementation of the Plan was a bold step taken by UK, unique among its
benchmarks. She stated the motion?s
purpose was to ensure faculty exercise their mandate to reconcile the Plan with
academic strategy. The Chair asked for
further discussion on the motion on the floor.
Grossman stated that he believed the purpose of the motion was to signal
that the University Senate was not in favor or against the Plan, but rather was
to show the Senate?s intent to have a prominent role in how the Plan unfolds in
the academic arena. Tagavi stated that
the motion in the handout was not the final version decided upon in the Senate
Council listserv. Jones pointed out the
motion on screen (PowerPoint presentation) had the most recent language.

The Chair called for a vote on the motion; the motion carried with no objections and no
abstentions. Jones asked that the two
faculty trustees [Dembo and Moore] relay that information to the Board of
Trustees at the meetings on December 13.
The Chair stated he had already requested they do so, assuming the
motion was approved by the Senate.

7. Academic Offenses

The Chair stated that the
proposal from the Senate Council came in two parts, the issue of sunsets on
petitions and the remainder of the academic offenses proposal. The issue of not allowing sunsets came with a
positive recommendation from the Council and the academic offenses proposal as
a whole (minus the sunsets) came with a positive recommendation.

Academic Offenses Ad Hoc Committee
Chair Grossman offered background
information (PDF). He stated the Committee felt that there was
a need for a new policy, primarily due to the minimum penalty of an E for
an academic offense, regardless of circumstances.
Grossman went on to say many instructors ignored the current Rule regarding an academic offense, which
was causing other problems, most notably a lack of ability to identify repeat
offenders who were not formally disciplined. He stated that he was aware of areas on campus
where the norm was to inquire among colleagues about whether or not a student
had before been accused of cheating, to determine if a student was a repeat
offender. Because of sub-minimum penalties,
there were widely disparate punishments, depending on whether or not the instructor
followed the Rules.

Grossman referred to his
presentation and stated that the Senate Council had unanimously approved the
proposal. In addressing the issue of
automatic removal from transcripts, Jarvis confirmed that a majority of
students queried were against it. With
respect to suggestions that the Committee review enforcement and creating a
culture of self-education, the Committee did not think it was in their scope to
address this type of comment.

The Chair asked Grossman to
stay at the podium to address any questions.
The Chair noted that the Senate had two opportunities to offer
suggestions on the proposal and that there had been other occasions when comments
were solicited. Blackwell asked about
when the proposal would go into effect.

The Chair stated it was a decision that would be made by the
Senate. Jones added that it was
effective upon approval, unless the Senate provided otherwise. Upon request, the current University Appeals
Board Chair, Guest Joe Fink, stated that the proposal was complex and difficult
to describe to students. He did believe
it was an improvement over previous versions of the proposal. Peffer stated that he refers to academic
offenses in his syllabi, and believed that to be a contract between him and his
students. He opined that the effective
date should allow for time to incorporate the policy into syllabi. Grossman indicated he would be willing to
entertain a friendly amendment to address implementation.

In response to a question
from Eldred, Fink stated that while urged to, faculty members were not required
to attend University Appeals Board (UAB) hearings. Grossman said the Committee felt it should
tread lightly on the internal workings of the UAB and thought this type of
issues should go to Fink as suggestions.
Eldred stated her intent to vote in favor of the motion, regardless of
whether or not faculty were required to attend UAB meetings.

Senate Council Liaison Greissman
suggested Spring 2006 could be used to educate faculty and students about the
new policy, with an effective date of Fall 2006. He believed implementation in Fall 2006 would
give both faculty and students sufficient time to read and understand the
policy. The Chair asked for a motion. Eldred offered a friendly amendment so that the motion to approve included
?effective Fall 2006,? using the time prior to that date to make students and
faculty aware of the changes.? Infanger seconded and Grossman accepted.

Calvert requested additional
information about the ?egregious offense? section. Grossman stated the Committee believed that
type of information in a Rule would
have been a guideline. The Committee
strongly felt that this type of determination should be left to the discretion
of the instructor. Cibull added that the
penalties listed were minimum, not maximum penalties. The instructor would have discretion to
increase the penalty. Tagavi disagreed
with the comment that many instructors violated Rules in dealing with academic offenses or that instructors queried
colleagues to determine if a student was a repeat offender. There were still many aspects of the proposal
he was uncomfortable with, although he agreed with Fink that the proposal on
the floor was an improvement over previous versions. Tagavi also expressed concern that the
proposal removed the requirement that notification be done by certified letter;
the proposal only required United States Postal Service notification. He wondered how this would affect a student
who could claim he or she never received the notice. He then asked Senators if their mail had ever been lost. In addition, he was against permanently
noting a punishment for cheating on the student?s transcript. Tagavi stated that of about 50,000 grades
given in the Fall 2005 semester, only 10 to 12 were Es given for an academic
offense. He believed leaving a notation
for cheating on the transcript brands a student. Tagavi also referred to opinions given by a
variety (11) of past Ombuds and UAB Chairs, in response to an email he sent
out. One person thought a suspension for
cheating should remain on the transcript for ten years; ten people thought
three years was appropriate. Tagavi also
noted the burden on the University community of allowing students to petition
removal of their offense designations. He urged Senators to leave the current
removal after three years intact and not put a finding of cheating on a
student?s transcript forever.

Waldhart asked the Senators
to vote on the proposal, stating there had been much discussion and a number of
good comments raised. However, she
believed it preferable to approve the proposal and adjust it later if
necessary. Eldred noted her agreement
with Tagavi over the issue of petitions to remove cheating notations from the
transcript. She stated it would be
easier for her to vote to approve it if the concept of petitions were
allowed. Debski asked about the
definition of an academic offense and how flexible the definition is, in
contrast to her perceived decrease in flexibility in the penalty phase. Grossman stated that plagiarism was defined
in excruciating detail in sections prefacing the academic offenses section of
the Rules. He said cheating was defined as, ?what is
commonly understood as cheating.? In
response to Tagavi?s comment, Grossman stated that the Office of Legal Counsel
had asked the Committee to remove the requirement of using certified mail. Tagavi stated it was unfair that Grossman was
allowed to rebut all comments. The Chair
ruled that Grossman?s comments were better interpreted as responses rather than
rebuttals and thus he would allow responses from Grossman.

Tagavi stated a provision
could have been retained in the proposal to require the UAB hearing notice be
delivered in person, in the presence of a witness. He disagreed with the Committee?s decision to
remove the reference to a certified letter, regardless of the Office of Legal
Counsel?s request. Zentall spoke to the
issue of minimum penalties, saying the proposal allowed for varying punishments
as appropriate. He stated his intent to
vote in favor of the proposal. Debski
stated her question had been in reference to escalation. She was concerned that a situation could
occur in which a student could be suspended for even a minor infraction if the
student had already found guilty twice.

Waldhart called the question. Infanger raised a point of order, questioning
if the friendly amendment had been accepted.
It was confirmed that it had been.
Infanger seconded. A vote was taken on calling the
question. The motion carried, with more than two-thirds of
the members present voting in favor, and one abstention.

A vote was taken on the
motion from the Senate Council to approve the Academic Offenses proposal in its
entirety, excepting any references to petitions. The issue of petitions would be taken up
separately. The motion carried, with 36 in favor, one opposed
and four abstentions.

The Chair then indicated he
would hear discussion regarding the Senate Council recommendation against
allowing petitions to remove a cheating notation from the transcript. Tagavi asked for direction to where the issue
was addressed in the handout. Grossman
referred him to the sections in the margins of the handout [track changes] and
the PowerPoint slide. Tagavi asked a
procedural question regarding the lack of clarity he perceived in the
information available regarding petitions.
He stated he had assumed that if the information was deleted, it was not
to be read. Tagavi asked if others had
read the deleted text present in the ?track changes? version of the
proposal.

The Chair stated that the
issue had been voted on in the Senate Council and referred to in his opening
remarks him by saying there would be two sections. He added that this information was made
explicit by Grossman and that any reasonable Senator would conclude the issue
of petitions would be voted on separately.
Tagavi asked for information regarding the type of advance notice given. Eldred stated that it had been referred to
three times in the meeting. Tagavi
replied that it was not given in advance, as required by the Rules.
The Chair stated that Tagavi was the only Senator with an
objection. Furthermore, Tagavi was
present in the Senate Council meeting at which this was discussed and that
Tagavi was cognizant of it. The Chair
asked if any other Senators had concerns.
Debski stated she had not read the pertinent sections and asked if the
issue could be voted on at the next University Senate meeting.

In response, the Chair noted
that a Senator could vote against the motion.
He urged the Senate members to make an amendment to address the
issue. Cibull moved to table the issue of petitions definitively until the next
University Senate meeting on February 13, 2006.
The motion to table passed,
with 27 in favor, 15 against and one abstention. Grossman apologized for any lack of clarity
and stated he would provide Senators with a version of the proposal that
clearly indicated references to petitions.
Fink asked for and received concurrence from Senators that the date of
an academic offense incident would be the guideline as to whether it was
addressed under the old or the newly approved Rule.

8. Board and Senate Degree List

At the Chair?s request,
Jones offered background on the motion from the Senate Council to approve the
degree list. He stated that there were
still some students from Lexington Community College (LCC) who should receive UK degrees and some LCC students who should
receive UK
honors. Jones affirmed that the criteria
for honors under UK?s
oversight were those approved by UK University Senate criteria, and not any
newer honors criteria approved by LCC after separation of LCC or approved by the
Kentucky Community and Technical College System. The Chair noted the Senate Council had
approved the degree lists, and asked for further discussion. There being none, the motion passed via a
voice vote, with no abstentions.

9. Honorary Degrees

Graduate School Dean
Jeannine Blackwell introduced the honorary degrees, explaining that the
honorees came forth as a result of actions taken by the Honorary Degree
Committee of the Graduate
School. The names were voted on by Graduate Faculty a
week or two prior to the Senate meeting.
Blackwell then offered a [presentation] detailing the rationale behind
recommending honorary degrees for Dr. Raymond Betts, Seamus Heaney, Dr. Abby
Marlatt and Rep. Louise Slaughter.

Blackwell noted the
President had invited Seamus Haney to be the commencement speaker, and Haney
had accepted.

Upon completion of the
presentation, the Chair requested a motion to approve collectively or
individually the names put forward.
Bailey moved to approve all
four. Infanger seconded. The Chair noted
that due to changes in June 2005 to the University of Kentucky
Governing Regulations, only those
senators who were the elected Faculty Senators were eligible to vote on
recommendation for honorary degrees. The
motion passed unanimously.

The Chair reminded Senators
to attend the Holiday Reception on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 from 3:30 pm to
5:30 pm in the Lexmark Public Room, 209 Main Building.